Current challenges and opportunities for research on borderline ovarian tumors

Sherman, Mark E.; Berman, Jules J.; Birrer, Michael J.; Cho, Kathleen R.; Ellenson, Lora Hedrick; Gorstein, Fred; Seidman, Jeffrey D.

doi:10.1016/j.humpath.2004.03.007

Cited by 45 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Immunostaining of p53 (as a proxy of mutation) has previously shown to differ between LMP and invasive serous ovarian tumors (32) and is consistent with the evidence of functional p53 signaling observed in LMP tumors in this study and in a study by Bonome et al (8). Sherman et al (5) have suggested that this could be explained, at least in part, through a progressive model for LMP development into a more invasive form. However, it may equally support the argument for a differential pathway of development between serous LMP and high-grade serous ovarian carcinomas, as has been suggested by other groups (13).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Overall, this analysis was difficult due to a low number of samples, but some inferences can be made. For example, Sherman et al suggested reclassifying LMPs with substantial micropapillary growth as carcinomas (5). Here, we have shown that the global expression signature between tumors with or without micropapillary growth is not significantly different, supporting the view that these tumors are closely related at a molecular level, although still distinct from high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…Serous LMP tumors typically respond poorly to chemotherapy and are primarily managed surgically. Women affected by LMP tumors are, on average, younger than those affected by high-grade ovarian carcinomas (5). Pathologic evaluation of serous LMP tumors has identified some predictive features for the recurrence of disease, poor survival, and progression.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, the so-called ''micropapillary'' pattern within the primary tumor equates with high-grade change in the spectrum of serous LMP tumors and increases the likelihood of an invasive extraovarian disease and a worse clinical course. However, some debates still exist regarding the clinical significance of such histopathologic features (5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Mutation of ERBB2 Provides a Novel Alternative Mechanism for the Ubiquitous Activation of RAS-MAPK in Ovarian Serous Low Malignant Potential Tumors

Anglesio

Arnold²,

George³

et al. 2008

Molecular Cancer Research

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Approximately, 10% to 15% of serous ovarian tumors fall into the category designated as tumors of low malignant potential (LMP). Like their invasive counterparts, LMP tumors may be associated with extraovarian disease, for example, in the peritoneal cavity and regional lymph nodes. However, unlike typical invasive carcinomas, patients generally have a favorable prognosis. The mutational profile also differs markedly from that seen in most serous carcinomas. Typically, LMP tumors are associated with KRAS and BRAF mutations. Interrogation of expression profiles in serous LMP tumors suggested overall redundancy of RAS-MAPK pathway mutations and a distinct mechanism of oncogenesis compared with high-grade ovarian carcinomas. Our findings indicate that activating mutation of the RAS-MAPK pathway in serous LMP may be present in >70% of cases compared with f12.5% in serous ovarian carcinomas. In addition to mutations of KRAS (18%) and BRAF (48%) mutations, ERBB2

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mutation of ERBB2 Provides a Novel Alternative Mechanism for the Ubiquitous Activation of RAS-MAPK in Ovarian Serous Low Malignant Potential Tumors

Anglesio

Arnold²,

George³

et al. 2008

Molecular Cancer Research

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Borderline ovarian tumors comprise about 15%-20% of all epithelial ovarian malignancies [2,3] with an incidence of 1.8 -4.8 per 100,000 women per year [3][4][5]. BOTs differ significantly from ovarian carcinomas with regard to percentile distribution of tumor histotypes, lower FIGO stage, excellent overall prognosis, younger age distribution, higher infertility rate, and a lower frequency of BRCA mutations.…”

Section: Epidemiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnosis, Treatment, and Follow-Up of Borderline Ovarian Tumors

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After completing this course, the reader will be able to:1. Compare the epidemiologic and reproductive risk factors in BOTs with those in ovarian cancers and describe the molecular background of development of BOTs.2. Use the pathological terminology with either original grouping of borderline category or new subclassification of BOTs and assess the major predictor of recurrence and survival.3. Determine an appropriate diagnostic algorithm for patients with symptoms suggesting malignant ovarian tumors that will identify borderline ovarian tumors when present.This article is available for continuing medical education credit at CME.TheOncologist.com. CME CME ABSTRACTBorderline ovarian tumors represent a heterogeneous group of noninvasive tumors of uncertain malignant potential with characteristic histology. They occur in younger women, are present at an early stage, and have a favorable prognosis, but symptomatic recurrence and death may be found as long as 20 years after therapy in some patients. The molecular changes in borderline ovarian tumors indicate linkage of this disease to type I ovarian tumors (lowgrade ovarian carcinomas). The pathological stage of disease and subclassification of extraovarian disease into invasive and noninvasive implants, together with the presence of postoperative macroscopic residual disease, appear to be the major predictor of recurrence and survival. However, it should be emphasized that the most important negative prognostic factor for recurrence is just the use of conservative surgery, but without any impact on patient survival because most recurrent diseases are of the borderline type-easily curable and with an excellent prognosis. Borderline tumors are difficult masses to correctly preoperatively diagnose using imaging methods because their macroscopic features may overlap with invasive and benign ovarian tumors. Over the past several decades, surgical therapy has shifted from a radical approach to more conservative treatment; however, oncologic safety must always be balanced. Follow-up is essential using routine ultrasound imaging, with special attention paid to the remaining ovary in conservatively treated patients. Current literature on this topic leads to a number of controversies that will be discussed thoroughly in this article, with the aim to provide recommendations for the clinical management of these patients. The Oncologist

show abstract